Also and importantly, apparently one of Murdoch’s sons is ferociously on our side about climate change, and has managed to sway Rupert himself on that issue. The son also has a serious dislike for Roger Ailes. Sorry that I don’t have a cite and a link for it, but if you Ixquick-search the relevant terms, the articles will probably pop up. This stance hasn’t been reflected on Fox Noize USA yet, but after Rupert’s gone, that son is lined up to take over the empire. At that point we should expect to see some changes, including at Fox Noize.

Jane @ 5: All language has emotional associations and implications. Today’s neutral word is tomorrow’s hypercharged buzzword and vice-versa. In the 1960’s the respectful word for African Americans was “Negro” with a capital N, and the word “black” was considered disrespectful. Today “black” as an adjective is a respectful word, and any use of the word “Negro” is considered suspect.

But beyond that, there’s medicine and there’s not-medicine and there’s outright quackery, and a lot of the latter two categories fly under the banner of “integrative medicine.” Anti-vax is not only quackery, it’s a danger to public health. Homeopathy and so on have been responsible for numerous individuals not getting real medical care and ending up disabled or dead as a result. Steve Jobs would probably be alive today if he’d gotten “standard of care” treatment for his pancreatic cancer when he was diagnosed. Instead he spent precious time diverted into “integrative medicine.”

When “alternative medicine” is found to work, it’s no longer “alternative,” it’s just “medicine.” Today’s conventional wisdom about the benefits of eating more vegetables and fruits, were 40 years ago considered “alternative,” but the public health outcomes validated the more reasonable claims for improved diet. Yoga is useful as a form of exercise, and meditation is useful for improving concentration and reducing stress, though neither of them can cure life-threatening diseases. When someone takes something out of its known-good applications and promotes it as a panacea, that’s not medicine any more. Using steroids for cheating at athletics is also a case in point though we usually don’t think of it that way.

And nobody is concealing any research, though as for “demonizing,” sloppy research in any field is fair game for criticism. There is however a general problem of the under-funding of research across all scientific disciplines. What we need is to triple the budget for all forms of basic and applied research, from astronomy to zoology, and I’d be happy to accept more funding of “wild stuff” into the bargain because there would be no shortage of funding overall. So the lesson here is, whoever you’re supporting in this election, let their campaign know that you support a major increase in federal funding of science.

I have heard that a climate change related documentary in in the works now. That will be an interesting test of the whole thing.

This has nothing to do with scienceblogs. Scienceblogs.com has always had about the most editorial independence of any similar network of bloggers, and as far as I know that continues. Most other networks are highly coordinated with a central authority determining what happens and does not happen, or follow a standard model with typical editorial control or direction, or has no model but occasionally bloggers get slapped or tossed out having had personal discretion up to that moment.

Murdoch apparently just acquired National Geographic.

Oh dear, that is worrisome. I’m a longtime subscriber, and I’ve been pleased with the NGS’s reporting on conservation and environmental issues. I’ll be watching for signs of Murdoch’s influence.

There’s an uncomfortable undertone to your comment that suggests that old “false balance” that “all medical approaches are equal” — but quite certainly they’re not. Only those based on solid science are reliable as being “true”. Saying so is not to be disparaged (given that such claims are backed up by evidence, subjected to peer review, etc., which is a given if you’re referring to real science rather than pseudo-science).

—

Obvious way to spot quack sites of all kinds: they use Lots Of Capital Letters and/or they often say they have “The Truth” or “The Real Truth” about one thing or another. Often they have flashy animated clutter on their pages, but just as often they may try to look like legitimate media. Avoid like plague.

Beware of anything that says “breakthrough” or uses similar hyperbolic language, unless you see it on a known high-quality site. Beware of emotion-heavy language that plays on common human hopes such as for cures for diseases or answers to fundamental questions.

Study the quack sites and silly nonsense sites for the purpose of learning their subcultural dialects, so you can spot the various keywords in other places that aren’t quite so obvious. For example “health freedom” is a buzz phrase for anti-vaccination garbage and also for “integrative medicine,” which itself is a buzz phrase for “integrating” nonsense into medicine.

Find places such as Scienceblogs where working scientists write for the public or hang out, and ask questions. “I just saw this article on (subject) at (link), and I was wondering (question).” Do it under a pseudonym if you’re afraid you might embarrass yourself by saying something silly.

Working scientists and their grad students are often willing to answer questions sent in via email, but be concise and right to the point. In some cases they’ll also be willing to send you copies of papers they’ve written or otherwise been involved with. But before you ask a bunch of questions, try finding answers for yourself online. Ask the questions in email that you don’t see addressed in online discussions.

Re. search engines, beware the Google Bubble effect, whereby Google and some others track you and try to predict what you’re looking for, and give you more of the same. That might be helpful in some cases, but more often it ends up leading people down rabbit holes they can’t get out of due to Google’s persistent cookies. Better, use Ixquick.com or DuckDuckGo.com, which don’t do that. Experiment with ways of phrasing searches to get to the best sources of information quickly.

Some working scientists give talks that are recorded on video and available online. These can be useful for background information about a field, or to hear these individuals speaking for themselves in an informal context without someone else trying to interpret their words for them. Searching the person’s name on a video search page (Ixquick.com has this) is useful. Long-form interviews of people who work in a field are also useful if & where you can find them on credible sites.